Design Room: Simplicity is Depth

There is a beauty to a simple, clean design that no amount of detail or crunch can improve. One can go on and on, providing tactical depth but adding nothing. At a point, you are taking away options just to give them back later, and the design becomes "rats in a maze," but the maze here is rules and paragraphs of subclass options. And with every new subclass added, you are taking those abilities away from those who thought they had them.

Oh, I thought as a druid, I was always a bit of a beastmaster. So you are telling me the new beastmaster subclass does that better? Oh, okay, I picked healing. I guess I am a little more inadequate these days. I just will never use my beastmater powers, since they will never be seen as good as the subclass that specializes in it.

In OSE? All druids are druids. If you want to do druid things, just make them up and ask the referee if what you are doing is druid enough. If it is a spell, well, then, it is automatically druid, and what you can do. You don't need subclasses "carving off" things you can't do with each new one added, either because you never knew you could do that and it was just taken away, or "someone else does it better now," and you have the specialization curse.

In the OSR, classes are how we have party specialization, not subclasses. I don't need rules to solve the non-problem that "all fighters are the same," since that's on me to solve. I will do that through my roleplaying, gear choices, social role, and stats. A party of four or five probably will solve the specialization problem through everyone picking a different class, or some using race-as-class to play an elf or a dwarf.

The game isn't giving me rules or subclass choices to make my elf different from other elves; that is on me. This is where my ability to play a character, roleplay, and craft a unique character comes into play. The player skill needed to do this is much higher than 5E.

5E solves the problem by cutting off parts of your class role, forbidding them from other builds, and making you a false specialist instead of a master of all. If I am the druid? I want to be the weather-caller, wild-shaper, druid of growth, beast-master, and harmony priest. I get that in OSE. Thematically, that is much easier for me as a role-player and much better for me to play my class role. I can call myself a "specialist" in one area, but there aren't any rules for that; it is just my choice.

I am likely the party's only druid, so I get to do it all.

Easy. Simple. Clean. Flexible.

We saw the "lie of specialization" begin to seep into the game with AD&D 2nd Edition and the kitbash design introduced in the compendiums. The game began to accumulate the debt of inferior game designers, and it diverged from the original clean, flexible simplicity it captured. 5E enshrines the lie of specialization and writes it into the structure of the game.

Without specialization, my druid is free to embrace all the tropes of being a druid, and I am freer to craft the character I want to play. Nothing is telling me "I can't do that since some other subclass is better than me at it."

D&D doesn't need specialization.

Class choice more than covers it.

D&D is better without specialization.

OSE Confusion?

If D&D 5E players can figure out subclass options and multiclass builds, they can surely figure out "buy Old School Essentials Advanced Fantasy Player's Guide and Advanced Fantasy Referee's Guide" to buy the game.

It is simple.

I love these D&D and even OSR YouTube thumbnails purposefully confusing the situation by taking books that are clearly meant to be optional formats and collectors' editions, mixing them in with the main books, and acting all confused.

The problem with YouTube is that there is so much time to fill that creators will invent problems to solve and either say nothing, or make something that was never a problem, suddenly a problem. This is the "open mic curse," and it eventually happens to all channels.

The pretend confusion has gotten so bad that the next version of OSE will only have Advanced Fantasy and be two books, and the non-problems go away, which was never really a problem to begin with. Again, we are talking about 90% of the role-playing market playing 5E, and obviously not so confused that they are applying bard subclasses to fighters because "what subclass do I use?"

I recently got the nine-book set of Classic and Advanced, and it's perfectly clear when to use each book. I have the OG Classic all-in-one book and the two-book Advanced set, and it is perfectly clear when to use each. Most people end up buying Advanced, so it was never really that much of an issue.

I still enjoy the limited options in Classic and the more streamlined, simplified game to present. For some games, too many options will kill the game and take it off the rails. This is a chronic problem with 5E, where there are so many races, classes, and options that they all become too samey as the designers try to make "everyone do everything" so there are no glaring holes in healing, damage, defense, or utility.

The OG Classic book is still one of the best versions of the game, despite being far less popular, and is soon moving to a PoD-only format. In this case, less is more.

And, I enjoy the OGL versions of the game. I am glad they are 100% compatible, and the new books only add a few optional rules that can be houseruled into the classic books, since those are my play copies. For the most part, I only see the four small class changes and a few optional rules being used here; the OG books are still 100% usable.

You can literally put all the 2026 rule changes on a half-sheet of paper or in a Carcass Crawler Zine, keep that as a houserule sheet, and play by the new books with the old.

Mail Room: Old School Essentials Boxed Sets

Get these before you possibly can't.

I got the two boxed sets for the OSR version of Old School Essentials, and my first reaction was, "I like the all-in-one books better; having all these small books makes the game harder to play."

And then I saw the end pages in each book, each set different, and each set insanely useful, helping you learn the game's structure and gameplay. You can hand the characters' book to the players and have them just exist in that world, with no distractions or knowledge of what lies ahead. You can keep them to just Classic, and keep the advanced Characters book to the side, not introducing those options again until later.

The magic book sits apart from the characters and remains a mystery.

The adventures book is the referee's guide with all the rules in one place.

The monsters and treasure books are separate, each a reference guide that can be opened and consulted.

And the advanced books isolate and encapsulate the advanced options, still there if you want to use them, but also split off so they remain even more mysterious and special. Yes, you will have two monster books, treasure books, character books, and magic books - but they are divided on purpose.

One reflects the basic set, and the other reflects an expert set.

And the single adventures book is the master key that unlocks them all.

But those end pages are what make the magic happen, as each set is tailored to the most important tables of the book they bracket. Reading these, you will understand the gameplay and structure of the entire book, all the most important parts, and things to remember, all here in clearly laid out tables, beautifully concise and clear.

These feel like the classic 8-bit RPGs.

Simple. Direct. Clean. Limited yet boundless. Inspiring.

And starting with just the basics gives you a new appreciation for this retro classic.

This is even better than the original BX guides, as legendary as they are; these boxed sets are just amazing and special.

So simple.

But so infinite in the smallest form.

BX vs. Castles & Crusades

If there is one universal rule in the hobby, it is that Castles & Crusades beats every other game. C&C is easier than BX, requires less reference during play, and it is a modern set of rules that is backward compatible with any classic adventure you throw at it. The entire game plays from an index card. The characters have depth and a curated collection of modern abilities. The multi-classing in C&C makes nearly infinite combinations of characters to play.

If you want a modern game that does not feel like "walking away from 5E," then Castles & Crusades will make an excellent home for you. The game is still very old-school in its playstyle, resource management, danger, and feel, but very modern in its gameplay mechanics, with a dice roll for any situation that arises.

I still love Old School Essentials! There is a "toy factor" to these books that can't be denied, and I mean that in the best way. For a game this small, compact, and easy to use, having it be so expansive, infinite, and amazingly playable is a masterstroke. If you ever remember the magic of bringing home an NES game cartridge and having the feeling that "an entire world exists in this tiny object," then you understand the true power of Old School Essentials.

The Latin phrase for that is "microcosmus in parvo," and it fits perfectly when holding a copy of Old School Essentials. The universe is reflected in the smallest thing.

When I hold the OSE books, I am holding the universe in my hands, two tiny books, and infinite worlds and possibilities. With C&C, I am back to the "arcane tome" feeling of AD&D, where the books are big, serious, weighty, and scholarly, and arcane guides on how the world works. While the C&C books are each singularly amazing and a masterclass in game design, the OSE books have a "power in the tiny" that is undeniable.

Using the optional tertiary ability score rules in the CKG makes the game feel more modern and gives your character a lot of customization options. I am a super fan of those rules, and they broke the game wide open for me, so I don't feel my characters are making too drastic a trade-off between primary and secondary scores. Now, I get a smooth progression between my primary (12), secondary (15), and tertiary (18) ability scores.

I used to feel my human "survival cleric" lacked in DEX, having her primaries set to CON, CHR, and WIS. With STR and DEX as secondaries (15), and INT as her tertiary (18), I do not feel she is being punished as hard when she wants to balance along a ledge and force open doors.

Chef's kiss.

Seriously, the optional rules in the CKG turn C&C into about five different-feeling games and fix a few of the game's strange-feeling parts (when coming from the OSR), especially when compared to modern rule sets. You will find the game you want in C&C, and it can be a direct superheroic-fantasy replacement of 5E if you want it to be.

With BX, my survival cleric is just a cleric. I hope she has a high STR or DEX score, and that will do the same thing, but the SIEGE Engine invisibly handles the game's "skill system" without requiring one. In C&C, marking an ability score as "primary" tells us, "If this game had a skill system, I spent a lot of skill points in this ability score area." The SIEGE Engine forever fixes D&D 3.5E's massive, bloated, overdone, and cumbersome skill system by designating a few ability scores as primaries, secondaries, and, optionally, teritiaries.

Like Swords & Wizardry's single save number, the SIEGE Engine as a whole is a genius piece of game design. Rarely do we get game mechanics this good that simplify our lives and solve entire overdesigned systems with a simple, clean, and clear rule.

BX is the simpler game, with a more straightforward gameplay loop. If you have the BX gameplay loop down pat and want a modern set of rules? Want characters with something more to them than a few abilities?  Want that 1E feeling without all the complexity? Play C&C.

If you want the classic, tight, almost board-game-like gameplay loop? Play BX. Easier choices, more iconic selections, a game not overconfused by dozens of races and class choices? The rock-solid, core choices and options that make the game a classic? BX all the way, preferably the classic rules. Once you start adding "stuff" to the game, you water it down, confuse the choices, introduce classes that were never a part of the core experience, and you lose something.

You lose the game under a mass of optional stuff that ends up distracting everyone from what was there. It comes off like adding optional expansion boards to Monopoly or Axis & Allies, and all of a sudden, that core, solid, tight game experience becomes muddled, slow, heavy, distracted, and confused.

The original game is lost.

People who knew the original can see the beauty through the chaff, but any modern player will see a weaker version of what they already have in 5E and similar games. If you want modern classes and roles like those in 5E, but you don't want everyone to feel they're lacking powers or iconic class abilities, C&C will be a better fit.

There is an argument that if you play BX, you should play without all the distractions and enjoy the game as it was played back in the day.

Sure, Advanced Fantasy is the more popular game and has the most "stuff" - but an abundance of choices doesn't make a good game. Some can't play without the bard, druid, or ranger, and I am one of those, too. For me, those classes in C&C feel much better and keep other games out of the equation. I am more than happy with the C&C designs, and they fit my vision of what the modern classes should look, feel, and play like.

The BX versions of these classes are weaker and are slow to "come online" with signature powers. In lower-level play, the feeling between playing a fighter and a paladin will not feel like much in BX, where in C&C, those two will feel and play vastly different.

Your class identities are much better represented and feel in C&C than in BX, especially for expansion classes, which in the original game took quite a while to begin to feel and play differently. C&C also lets you houserule in "class skills": if a ranger should know how to do something, you make a SIEGE Engine check on the closest ability score, and do "the thing" on a success.

C&C makes adjudicating "class skills" a part of the system by default. In BX, you will rely on the referee "pass or fail" allowing it, and most of the time, if a ranger knows how to do something, they will just be able to do it (or make an ability score roll for it), and that will be it. C&C starts with the modern notion of the "skill check" and lets the SIEGE Engine drive it all simply and in a unified manner.

But do you prefer a more modern set of rules with ways to handle any situation that comes up? Rules mods that fill up an entire book? Characters with new abilities that unlock as you level? Then, C&C will be better for you. C&C does everything BX does, but with a modern rules framework that stays out of the way and handles much of the heavy lifting for you.

For me?

Castles & Crusades easily replaces 5E for me, as a game that "does anything and everything." This is my 16-bit Genesis console that "brings home the arcade."

OSE is my "game on the go" and daily driver for everything else, being cross-compatible with so many things (and even C&C) that the investment is great for every game I buy. This is my 8-bit NES or Gameboy, the tiny thing I hold in my hand that does so much.

Microcosmus in parvo.

OSR Buyer's Guide Page Updated

https://sbrpg20.blogspot.com/p/osr-buyers-guide.html

I updated the OSR Buyers Guide page to cover BX, and here are my best suggestions for getting started with various editions in the hobby. Today, information, links, and discussions of BX are laid out, with my picks for the best in the genre, both in inspirational material and rock-solid books for play.

Gone are the discussions of alternate editions and versions (Labyrinth Lord, Dragonslayer, etc.), and a page will likely be added later to discuss them. Times change, and those need to be updated.

BX and Star Wars

The original Edge of the Empire game was released in 2012, and it is still an amazing experience. This is one of the most lore-dense games I have encountered in this universe, and it continues the tradition of the roleplaying community carrying the Star Wars fandom and keeping the torch lit when hope seems lost and the light is dimming.

I get that this seems like a modern game, but it really feels like something from the late 1980s that carries into the 1990s. Technically, the West End Games' Star Wars system is the 1980's version of the game, but this is what we have today, and it works well enough to take me back.

If we can have Classic Pizza Hut back in 2026, we can have Classic Star Wars, too.

The same thing applies to Old School Essentials; this is my 1980s throwback game. While yes, we have the original BX books in PoD these days, there is no guarantee those will be around forever, and OSE is the path forward. The original BX books are the better game for learning to play, but Basic Fantasy also does a wonderful job teaching the game. For me, OSE is a fast-playing, more-optioned, easier-to-use, streamlined set of rules that disappears into the background and lets me focus on the dungeon turn, the story, and being the referee.

Keep your BX books close for inspiration and for that positive karma. For me, OSE is BX D&D, the game that brought it back to the mainstream and became the de facto standard for creators and adventure writers. There is no way you can publish for BX anymore except through the OSE license, and that is getting free of the OGL next year. The BX books are teaching games only until the rules are released under a Creative Commons license. If Wizards could put out as much as possible under the CC, for every edition, that would be a huge gift to gaming and go a long way to winning me back.

Given the sad state of both 5E and Star Wars, I am ready to go back to the 1980s and forget today, and relive those times. Yes, that is not possible without d6 Star Wars (you can still get the d6 Space system in PoD), but the Edge Studio games are fine and in print rotation. I am supporting this game while it is still out there, and I hope it continues.

Do I hope Disney can turn it around? Yes! Wishing for failure is just evil. I want good Star Wars again. Until I can get it, I will go back to the last, best Star Wars we had. There is an argument for Rogue One, Andor, Mando Seasons 1 & 2, and The Force Awakens being glimmers of light in the darkness - so the current state of things is not a total loss. We have fallen off, post-Pandemic, and we need a turnaround.

TFA had potential. It could have gone so many places. Even that seems like something that could have started off rough but gotten better over time. If I ever play in the sequel universe, it will be with TFA as the starting point, and nothing that comes afterward will count.

Poe would be a hero, assembling a team of Resistance fighters under Leia's guidance.

Finn would be a Jedi and lead the new Jedi Order through Luke.

Ben Solo would need to find redemption through sacrifice, just like Vader, through Han.

And Rey would fall to the dark side, betraying them all, and becoming the new Emperor.

Look at that poster, that is the story it tells me. Where the characters are, the lightsabers they are holding, Rey crossing the red saber towards the darkness, and Finn holding the blue. Subliminally, this is the story we were promised but never given.

The game lets me tell that story, fulfill the dreams I had of that place in my universe, and finish the trilogy in my head the right way. Yes, it is fan fiction, but it is better than what we got. One of the most beautiful things about gaming is being able to finish one story and begin another. And to take the huge box of action figures and vehicles, this big box of toys, and play pretend.

TFA, as a starting point, could be salvaged.

The Edge of the Empire and sister games are GOOD Star Wars games, full of nostalgia and memories, written by people who love the EU and the source material. I hope these continue and are even expanded upon. I want PDFs and VTT support!

But I know this may not happen, so I will hold onto my library tight.

It is really all I have, unless someone makes a "clone game" of BX Star Wars in a like universe. There is White Star, and that is getting a new edition from those who brought us OSRIC 3.0, which is great news. I need more drop-in replacements for some of the "SW-like" items and to make parallel, BX-based play in this universe easier.

There is room in the BX and OSR communities to make a parallel science-fantasy game that delivers a Star Wars-type experience well while leaving the door open for us to write our own stories. This is likely one of the next steps to take in the hobby, just to keep the stories alive if the licensed game were ever to fall.

Until then, I will be back here in the 1980s, enjoying myself, with classic BX and the EU books and games. I will keep an eye on the new stuff and hope it shows promise, but I know where I will be happy.

Here.

Shadowdark vs. OSE

Shadowdark is an amazing game, and I love the table dynamics and timer-based play. This is one of the best dungeon-style board games, instantly playable and quick to jump in and get started. I love this game, though I feel the third-party books got a bit bloated, and many of the early releases water down the game or add too many options. I desperately need to clean out my library. I have too many books for this game; when it should be a light game, I now have a shelf of okay books.

What keeps me coming back to OSE? Well, for one, there is no torch timer. In a real-world span of 5 minutes, I can say two torches (hours) of time burn down as the players excavate a collapsed tomb. You can do that in Shadowdark, but the game is more comfortable with the live timer and the tension that it brings to the table.

I have far more control over time in OSE, and the time tracking and management are not real-time. It is just a checklist, and it proceeds rapidly. In OSE, you can cover far more ground since the game is not played in a "tactical, on-map" mode all the time. Part of Shadowdark's appeal is that tightness and small-map appeal, where you are not exploring a 100-room megadungeon, and the scenarios are tight and tactical.

Shadowdark is more of a board game, and I love it for that.

OSE is more of a traditional pen-and-paper RPG, with a dungeon turn, mapping, a caller, and marching order, and I love it for that.

Another area where I prefer OSE is in mapping. Shadowdark is more "played on the actual map," where in OSE, the players do the mapping. There is zero chance of getting lost on an official map displayed on a VTT, and the player's map will never be wrong, lost, burned by a fireball, eaten by green slime, or unable to be read in the pitch dark. Players can make mistakes mapping, and this is the classic gameplay loop taken from real-life cave explorers and their accounts in the 1960s and 70s.

In early computer games, you had to "map a map" by hand next to the computer. You got graph paper, and you mapped out what the computer described to you. Your mapping skills and ability to take notes were factors in your success.

Shadowdark is more like the old Dungeon board game in many ways, and is today's version of that classic. This is one of the best table-based, tense, teamwork-required, and timed games ever written. But OSE brings a different type of fun to the table. OSE does campaign play, near-infinite options, the old-school gameplay loop, and the best resource management in gaming.

When you consider the resources you manage in OSE, it is not just the number of torches, but also time, spells, health, rations, equipment, and the chance of getting completely lost. The classic reaction roll and morale rules are baked into the OSE dungeon turn, meaning not every encounter will be a fight. This rule is in Shadowdark for random encounters. Did you encounter orcs? Are they friendly? Would you trade with them if you needed rations or torches? Do you attack or backstab them? In OSE, you need to make that choice. In most 5E games, the choice is made for you.

And OSE carries forward BX's wilderness exploration rules, where it is also possible to get lost and find yourself fighting to figure out where you are, how you will survive, and how to get back home alive. OSE also has dominion play, so it has a complete beginning, middle, and endgame.

Shadowdark is still a favorite; this is a tight, focused, "experience game" that extends 5E into tabletop dungeon play. Like Nimble 5e, it is a second-generation 5E game that drills down on a specific experience with a laser-like focus. It does fast, jump-in, time-limited table-top games better than most other games out there, even 5E. Where in D&D you are struggling to finish one combat in four hours, you have finished six fights and an entire dungeon in Shadowdark in half the time.

D&D has a massive time-to-play problem. It is killing the game for many and cutting it off at the knees at the high level for most players. Most do not want to play past the 7th level. D&D is failing us, and the D&D-like games are not doing much better. All of them have the same problems. Some are presented better, others have neat mechanics, others balance for math, but they all fall short past the 8th level.

Shadowdark is the best-in-class for timed, tight, focused, pressure-cooker, and forced teamwork play. You either learn how to be efficient and work as a group, or you run out of torches and everyone dies. Nothing puts a random group of people at a convention together and forces them to work as a team like this game. It is a genius idea, best with others, and a time-limited run. The perfect convention game has been written.

OSE is a second-to-none campaign experience, and it beats 5E in character sheet complexity, the dungeon turn gameplay loop, and mid and high-level play. Where 5E has you running dungeons to level 20, OSE has you running dungeons, exploring the wilderness, and running domains all the way to level 14. For me, the ease of running multiple characters makes this a snap to solo-play. For me, OSE offers simple play, a classic gameplay loop, and varied play-styles that all work together.

They are not the same game. One cannot entirely do the other's job.

You play Shadowdark, you are on the clock, uncovering a known map, watching your torch, and trying to complete objectives before time runs out. You are moving extra carefully, working together as a group, and not wasting time. All while trying to survive.

You play OSE, and you are in the classic gameplay loop, mapping, using time and resources wisely, surviving, and trying to explore the unknown, however big that unknown may be. OSE can go massive in scope and scale, even to the wilderness and world level. And OSE goes micro, down to the next ten feet of hallway and that ten-foot pole.

They are different games, both best-in-class, and they beat D&D in those respective areas.

Add Nimble to the mix, and you have little reason to have D&D at all.

Is OSE Dropping BX?

https://necroticgnome.com/blogs/news/ose-2026-update-faq

I see some handwringing over OSE's move to a unified, standardized edition based around the Advanced rules. If what Castles & Crusades did with their amazing "de-OGL-ing" of their game, I would not worry one bit, and removing some of the "iconic terms" that some find so endearing (beholder to eye of terror, as given in the above link) is nothing but a nuisance, since call it what you want.

A few name changes to "owned IP" are not going to kill BX, but will make it stronger, able to stand on its own for the first time, and enable creators to use the iconic monsters and magic items in their adventures with a brand-new, not-tied-to-Wizards creative license. This is the birth of Open BX.

C&C did it just fine; I am not worried.

Breaking free of Wizards is exactly what the game needs in this moment.

Troll Lord Games did an incredible, exciting job of removing the OGL.

And the OGL is not BX. It should never be, since the OGL can be taken away from us someday. I am not letting them take BX from us as an extension of that. It is probably a moot threat, but I have no trust in companies with billions of dollars to throw around at a whim, and what they may do with that to kill competition. The little guys need to do everything possible to protect themselves and, by extension, our hobby and the investments we've made in our games.

Getting rid of the OGL is worth it at almost any cost.

A few name changes, or having the game under permanent threat because of "the feels?"

Who cares?

BX is greater than D&D. BX is greater than a few names we used to call things. BX is more than an old set of terms and spell names. The community of BX creators comes first. And 98% of the terms are already in the CC 5.1 document, so not much will need to change, anyway.

BX is a way of life.

The game will still beat with the heart of BX, and there is no need to go running back to dead-license versions and reprints from Wizards just to have a few names printed in your books. You are turning your back on a larger community of creators who need the support of passionate fans to run back into that cave of Wizards and the versions of the game that can never have new content created for them.

My old books work fine; they are not going away.

But creating new content is what this move is all about. They can't go forward with new starter sets, demonic grimoires, adventures, and expansions under the OGL. We will get more new stuff once the license is finally cleaned up and the game stands on its own. The new products will be possible because of the new license, and the game's future will be secure. We already have so much more in OSE than we did in the original books, with new classes, races, and ideas in an amazing game! Why would I go back?

If we want BX to live on its own, apart from the OGL and Wizards, we should embrace the new version and this new vision of the game. This is still 100% BX, but it is now Open BX. If the "old books" can't be expanded upon or adventures written for, then we will go crawling back to the dead-end versions of the game, and the game will eventually die.

An open-source and open-license version of any system will be superior to a proprietary one.

We need to move on. A few things here or there are nothing compared to having an open system.

This is the version of the game that will move forward as the old system slowly dies, goes out of print again, and is pulled by the parent company for whatever reason they come up with on a meeting room whiteboard. I want a game that is protected from "someone's stupid idea" for increasing profits.

Sure, for a few moments, playing with the original books will take me back to the 1980s. But nostalgia is a form of depression, and it is also selfish to support a version of the game that creators cannot write for. The BX community comes first, as this is the Open BX version of the game that will live forever.

OSE isn't dropping BX.

They are making it permanent.

A few changes are needed, but we will come out of this with a better game.

Mail Room: Gods of the Forbidden North (OSE)

If you can afford to pick up the hardcovers for Gods of the Forbidden North, do so. These volumes for OSE are mind-blowing, easily outdoing some of the classic BX megadungeons of yore. Where Barrowmaze is an amazing hexcrawl sandbox of its own, Gods of the Forbidden North is all that plus an expansive campaign setting, with many adventures scattered around the map.

GFN is easily large enough to "eat" every other megadungeon ever written, and has room for them all in this super setting. Though, to be honest, I don't know why you would, this place is massive enough on its own.

GFN is "an event" and not to be missed.

And this epic mega-setting easily outdoes many 5E mega-settings of the same caliber. It certainly outdoes most OSR megadungeons.

This is one of the most amazing mega-campaigns for OSE, and one of the most comprehensive and amazing since Rappan Athuk for Swords & Wizardry. Though this is more than a megadungeon, two whole volumes of this giant three-volume set are the campaign setting and the vast undercaverns.

And there is plenty of room for you to expand this setting and make it your own, placing your own dungeons and other adventures anywhere in this vast and savage land. There are cities to expand, plenty of room on the map, and your campaign can expand to be as large as you want, though there is enough in these books to last for a decade or more of regular sessions.

You have it all in just what they give you.

And the campaign ends with a megadungeon in the third book. You will never explore this all, and most will just discover the surface 10% of what these books have to offer. Still, the quality of the setting and adventures here is among the best in gaming, including 5E, and is not to be missed.

OSE is just as much of a "heavy hitter" in delivering cinematic and premiere experiences as 5E.

How GURPS Killed 5E for Me

I still enjoy 5E for what it tried to do, and I still have my Tales of the Valiant books. But if I am playing one game at that complexity level, and simplifying my gaming life to the games I enjoy the absolute most, there is only room in my gaming life for one massive game, and that game is GURPS.

I get more out of GURPS per minute spent with it than I do from 5E.

If the old solo-play adage "everything is playing" is true, then when I am designing a GURPS character, optimizing their points, fine-tuning their advantage and disadvantage list, picking their armor, carefully loading them out as to not over-encumber them, and finely crafting them to fit a role in my game - then GURPS gives me a constant stream of enjoyment at every minute I spend in a character designer.

In 5E, it is just "making big choices" and having the designers and web programmers add another huge list of junk to my character sheet. I make a few big choices, and they keep throwing things I don't want into my shopping cart. I get to decide very little, and all the choices I make are these aggregated, huge ones that feel less like character design and more like picking items off an à la carte menu and ending up with too much food on the table.

And if I want more choices?

In GURPS? The game comes with them all. I have an infinite number of choices at my fingertips. Batteries are included here. With just the core books, I get it all.

In 5E? I need to buy the next book or crowdfunding project to have more choices. I need to pray that they support those choices in the VTT of my choice. I need to constantly spend money to have new choices.

I love ToV, but I am always buying the next crowdfunding book to "have more."

With GURPS, I have it all in two books. Yes, you need to learn the system to make it work well, but it is better than paying $100-200 every 3 months for another 5E book. I learn the system, and save the money.

And GURPS works exactly the way I want it to. Do I want clerics to be like "fantasy superheroes?" Fune, give them a healing power that costs fatigue points, and let them heal whenever they want. Do I want them to use magic and spells? Okay, healing works that way in that framework. I am not dealing with "spell slots" or a class description a dozen pages long with subpaths that I am forced to pick.

Is it more work than being "told what to do?" Yes.

Does it work exactly how I want it to? Yes.

But I get it, some people don't want to do all the work and have "things to choose from." I am like that too, but 5E has grown beyond my ability to support it, since it tries to take over my entire gaming life and library. For those times, I will just play a game like Old School Essentials and a BX system, where everything is chosen for me, and all I need to do is play my role. It is far easier and cheaper than supporting a 5E habit, and I do not need the weight and complexity of 5E to enjoy a game of focused, limited choices.

And guess what? In OSE, you get 90% of anything you would want to play, and a handful of zines fills in some of the missing parts. I can fit more choices and options on a quarter shelf of OSE books than on eight shelves of 5E books. My OSE collection is small, but very expressive and expansive. Sure, every choice isn't as "deep" as a 5E class, but they do 90% of the same thing anyway in play, and the game is more focused on the dungeon turn, exploration, and the classic gameplay loop.

And 5E wants to be a narrative game, not a dungeon crawler. For narrative games where character-focused choices and narrative tools are more important on "damage per turn", GURPS will absolutely be the best choice. GURPS has far more tools for a narrative game than 5E ever will, with self-control rolls, advantages, disadvantages, and a whole host of roleplaying choices I can buy with character points.

What am I losing? Fantasy superheroes. I am a bit tired of that genre, and I prefer the classic, old-school dungeon turn and gameplay loop to that style of play. Also, if I play fantasy superheroes and want a tactical battle game, Pathfinder is a better choice than 5E, and it is balanced all the way to level 20. Draw Steel is another great tactical game. Nimble 5e does the entire genre fast and rules-light.

If I want to "support" 5E, I have Nimble: one small box that contains the entire 5E experience. The fantasy superheroes genre does not have to be a game that eats shelves. Nimble 5E takes the sting out of dropping full 5E, and it lets me keep 5E support on my shelves without a massive library or a huge time investment. It is a small game, like OSE, and it does everything.

Nimble makes putting 5E into legacy support so easy. I am not losing a thing. The game is tiny. It does fantasy superheroes well. It can sit on my OSE shelf and happily support 5E adventures and gameplay without all the books. Nimble does enough fantasy superheroes well enough that I do not miss a thing about 5E. This is also getting an expansion soon, and we will have more to play with.

And unlike 5E, Nimble plays fast. You get to feel more like a hero and less like someone who scans a character sheet, trying to figure out what to do during a turn. Why am I reading my character sheet multiple times during a combat? It feels like trying to drive a car, with the user manual open on the dashboard and flipping to the page for the left turn signal as you roll up to the intersection. And before you make the left turn, you need to have the DMV book open on the seat next to you so you can review the rules for making a left turn.

Is that a free action or a bonus action? Am I allowed to make a left turn on a bonus action? Oops, sorry, left turns are full-round actions. Please watch for oncoming traffic and turn when it is safe to do so. Where is that left turn signal again? Please give me the other book. Why is this car manual 400 pages long? Why do the rules for left turns go on for 12 pages?

And with an easier 5E, I have the time to focus and balance the games I love, meaning I have more time and shelf space for GURPS and OSE. Nimble sits happily alongside my big two games, offering me 5E if I want it. Nimble avoids cluttering my game shelves by being tiny yet feature-packed. It commits no sins and happily lives alongside my best games.

GURPS?

Yes, it is my last, best "big game."

I get more out of GURPS per minute spent with it than I do from a few thousand pages of 5E rules. At most, it is three shelves of amazing books, with only two core books mattering. GURPS gives me narrative "oomph" and power, and outshines 5E in story-based, narrative games. GURPS does social roleplay far better than 5E does, because what I choose during character creation matters. It is not all "classes and powers" in GURPS; my character's "physical and mental profile" is fully designed, whereas in 5E it is just assumed and scribbled in (if at all) in the notes section of the character sheet.

5E cares more about a button on a VTT character sheet you can press to roll a d20 plus skill modifier. I still like 5E, but we have gotten so lost in the woods with this system and VTT support that it no longer feels like the game we were promised in 2014. It is all gimmicks, tools, and power gaming in a JavaScript interface. The game isn't even dungeon-crawling anymore, and it feels like we are just pretending it does.

OSE is defined by the dungeon exploration turn.

Nimble gives me the heart of 5E without the complexity.

And GURPS cares more about the character than the character sheet.

My life feels better with just my best games on my shelf, and the ones I can support.

Coming Home and Less is More

The thing I love about BX is that it will never get any more complicated, slow, in-depth, or heavy than it already is. There are implementations of "heavy classes" in BX, where they go into an almost 5E level of depth in a class design, but the base gameplay is not affected as much as you might expect.

There is no dozen-page character sheet hidden by thousands of pages of JavaScript code on a VTT, making the game playable. This "backend code support" that makes 5E work is also what will kill the game. 5E was never designed to be played by hand, and once you get to a certain character level, you will find out why. Like a mobile game that eventually forces you to buy something to play more, 5E, after a few levels, requires you to sign up for some online service somewhere to "make it all easier to manage."

BX never, ever, needs a VTT or a digital character sheet.

5E is an inferior game for designing software code support into the game's requirements.

"All you need are pencils, paper, dice, some friends, an imagination ...and a subscription website with a few million lines of JavaScript code maintained by Wall Street."

Yeah, it is that last part that makes it a hard no from me. The problem is, I liked the websites! Roll20 is cool! Shard is amazing! Foundry VTT is mind-blowing! They were cool ways to play the game, and massively convenient. The maps and tokens are cool. Roll20 with the multi-game support is amazing.

I don't have time for any of it, though.

And a game that requires that much time from me is going to be a net negative in my life, and I will eventually need to cut the game off to make myself happier. Sorry, subtraction theory as a life-improvement strategy is a valid way to deal with a life that asks too much of us.

Yes, "D&D makes me happy" is a valid statement for me.

"5E sucked every free moment from my life" is also a true statement.

To make myself happy, I make a dramatic choice, kick 5E to the curb. Stick with an easier game that does "most of the same thing." Eliminate the constant revenue drain of VTTs and crowdfunding projects. Box up, sell, or store all the 5E books. Stick with a few, small, easy, simple OSE books.

Subtraction theory is life simplification.

Less is more.

Pathfinder 1e was this way for me. I enjoyed the heck out of that game. My library got too big, and the game died. The game needed software to build characters. It is in storage now. OSE does most of what it did, and exists as two tiny books on my shelf. One thing I found with these "huge games" is that they often try to make up for weak stories, worlds, and adventures with hyper-detailed characters. With BX, I need compelling adventures, worlds, and stories to engage players. I can't "fall back on the rules" to maintain interest, which often happens with 5E and other big games.

If OSE and BX do 80% of what 5E and Pathfinder do, and take ten times less time, space, shelf, software support, and "head space" requirements - then OSE and BX are the winners for me.

And BX is such an easy game; I can store the entire thing "in my head," like a micro "operating system," and run it from memory. From here, I have science fiction with Stars Without Number or White Star. I have the cyberpunk genre with Cities Without Number. I have post-apoc with Ashes Without Number. I have a few different fantasy games: Old School Essentials, Worlds Without Number, and Swords & Wizardry.

Even without OSRIC and ADAD, I have enough here to keep me busy for a lifetime. GURPS is a guilty pleasure of mine, my last "big game" that isn't actually all that big. That is non-negotiable and sticks around. If I am playing a game with complicated, in-depth characters and relying on "rules interest to drive game interest," I am sticking with the best character-building game ever invented, GURPS. GURPS killed 5E for me. If I am playing one game that in-depth, GURPS will kill anything else that it is put up against.

Plus, I don't need game designers to tell me what my characters can do. I decide that. I am the game designer. I always do a better job. And GURPS can be played with just two books; it is never a huge game if you take it on the road. With 5E, I do not have a choice.

Swords & Wizardry sticks around as "AD&D Lite," honestly. It is math-compatible with OSE, gives me a huge monster list for both games, and is a different way to play. If I have a world that feels more "1E" then S&W will do nicely; otherwise, OSE covers it.

OSE, S&W, Without Number, and even the 2d6 sci-fi games like FTL Nomad exist happily with each other, and alongside GURPS. A collection of "tiny games" and one heavy one that does it all makes a nice library where I can sell everything else off, and be happy again.

Less is more.

To Tweak or Not to Tweak? Capturing the Era

Do you tweak your games? It depends on how important it is to you that you are playing "exactly what was played" in the 1980s, down to the last class ability and numeric value. You are not tweaking the OSE fighter to make it more them, just rolling with what you got. After all, the class was designed like this; it worked back then, and why change it?

I have a few good reasons to bump OSE fighters' attack bonus by 2 across the board at every level, but is that the original game? No, it wasn't. And yes, it was. We did tweak and make adjustments back in the 1980's, too; very few of us played rules-as-written unless we were playing AD&D in a hobby store or other organized setting.

D&D was the home of the houseruled game.

AD&D, we tended to obey Gary's wishes and keep it as it was when we played with new people. Those were the "organized play rules," but even then, houseruled home games of AD&D were a huge thing.

We tend to put older games on pedestals and preserve them exactly as they were, trying to recapture the moment by not changing a thing and sticking to every letter printed on the page. We have a false sense of the past in which sticking to only what was written on that day was "official," and we artificially elevate its value.

Objects in the mirror may appear more important than they were.

It is important to have perspective and not silence the work of creators of third-party zines and others who turn OSE and BX into a living, breathing game open to discussion and expansion. To them, the game is a modern platform, worthy of support and expansion, and new and fresh ideas are the way forward. They take the base game, written in today's era, and move it forward, as if we had the same open license and freedom we could have had back in the 1980s, had TSR not been so closed-shop and litigious.

If you see OSE as a modern platform, you will, of course, tweak and mod it.

If you see OSE as a 1980s rules-simulator, you will be less likely to mod it.

If you are more into the rules-simulation side of the hobby and do not want to mod the game, then games like Swords & Wizardry and its 1970s simulation of the game's state during that time will appeal to you more. Also, there are some who absolutely do not want to list a page of houserules to a new group, and that can scare people away faster than anything you ever understand.

I have had a group of new players never begin a 5E game since I had a page of houserules, and I wanted to use the 2014 game (since that meant a few players did not have to buy new books). The group never started. They all found other things to do. The game died before it even began.

Why do we need all these houserules?

Is the game broken?

I don't want to buy a new game that is broken and needs all these house rules I will never understand!

Houserules can scare off new players, since they see a list of things they don't understand, have to mesh with a new game, and figure out the "how and why" of how it all works before a die is even rolled. Most will just quit and go do something else that doesn't need houserules. There is great value in saying, "This is what we are playing." You can point to one book, and the discussion is over. The contract is set; learn that book. This is the game we all agreed to, and we can play.

I am not against house rules, but I know how hard they can make it for some new players. For a group comfortable with each other and the game, houserules are great.

And games like Swords & Wizardry, which replicate the 1970s state of the game, the rulings, the common assumptions of the meanings, and laying out exactly where the clear and vague parts were, while trying to present the commonly agreed-upon interpretations, are also invaluable, even from the perspective of historical simulation.

If Dungeon Crawl Classics is a reinterpretation of "1970s play" through a modern game design lens, rooted in 3.5E-era sensibilities, then Swords & Wizardry is the actual game we played in the late 1970s. The games offer two views of the same era: DCC is more focused on random tables, imagination, and fun, while S&W presents the game as it was at that moment in time.

The pain of Vietnam was dulling; the gas lines and inflation of the 1970s were still in the discussion; the hippies had all gotten jobs; condo-living was a thing; disco was dying; arena rock was resurgent; and the era of over-the-air TV was being replaced by cable. The Cold War still raged on. The Reagan era was just over the horizon.

And we did not have AD&D yet. We pieced together rules from the original books and did our best to figure everything out. When BX came along, it was a restatement and clarification, the game coming into focus.

And the AD&D books took a few years to release! In 1977, it was the Monster Manual, followed in 1978 by the PHB, and in 1979 by the DMG. Imagine taking two years to release a game today, book by book. There was a whole year with just the original books and the Monster Manual; none of us knew what to do, what rules to use, and what was coming. The Monster Manual dropped into the middle of this discussion, and many pulled it into their existing games as-is.

By the time 1979 rolled around, it was all AD&D, and the 1970s and the original chaotic game we embraced were over. We had our official "organized play rules," and that was that. But those five years from 1974 to 1979? Those were the days of zero edition, and what DCC tries to replicate, along with the game Swords & Wizardry presents and reframes so well.

OSE is both a simulation and a modern platform, depending on your wants. It is best for new players of the game, and it will get better in the new edition with more examples of play and additional features to help new players. You can play this as a recreation, or use it as a platform to support gaming moving forward, just like a 5E.

The original BX games are exactly what they are, without the new presentation or reframing. They are locked in time, cannot be written for (outside of OSE), and will not change. They are more valuable as "the actual thing" and a historical record, and weaker as a platform. They were both released in 1980 and reflect the newer era. Remember, the red and blue books were released the year after the DMG came out, and reflected the "for kids" easier version of the game.

Many of us chose to stick with AD&D and ignored these books, though they had a certain charm.

I feel the same way about S&W as I do BX, in that S&W is the easier version of AD&D, streamlined and stripped down to the best parts, and all the slow, heavy, and excess rules out of the picture. If I want AD&D today, I have OSRIC 3.0. Communities and open licenses are more important than nostalgia. The platform for creativity comes first.

S&W recaptures the lighting-in-a-bottle of the 1974 to 1979 period, along with all the common assumptions, interpretations, and the original "hippies in a van and black felt neon paint posters" sort of feeling that era had. This could be seen as a "modern platform" too, and the expansion books treat it exactly that way. It is also an "easier" version of AD&D, before the huge rulebooks came out and clarified every little vague area of the rules and inconsistencies.